The Type 3 is a polarizing car, and it was so from its very beginning in the summer of 1961. Reaction to it largely depended on one’s relationship to the Beetle: for those that thought of the Beetle as a slow poor-man’s Porsche 356 (and many did in the fifties), the Type 3 narrowed the gap substantially: an affordable Porsche sedan. Buyers who bought a Beetle because it was cool or just cheap, but came to hate its many shortcomings and would really rather have had a Mustang or a Cutlass, the Type 3 was totally wasted on them. It was still all Volkswagen under its thick-gauge skin.

The Type 3 VW first appeared in the traditional notchback sedan format. It was a highly anticipated car in Europe, as the whole continent watched and waited to see how and when Volkswagen would finally address the obvious shortcomings of the then 25 year old Beetle. Germans were quickly becoming more affluent, and the rest of the industry rightfully targeted their growing purchasing power with mid-level cars like the Borgward Isabella, the BMW 1500/1800, and of course the ever popular mid level Opels and German Fords. VW was late to the party, and everyone was in a high state of anticipation.

The VW 1500, as it was called, was decidedly a mixed bag. One could rightfully say it was nothing more than a Beetle wrapped in a stylish new dress: it rode on the same wheelbase and somewhat wider platform frame mighty similar to the Beetle. Yes, the track was widened at the rear (as was the Beetle’s a few years later), but the front suspension was fundamentally the same, and the engine was classic VW: the same basic case, with bigger bore cylinders, a longer stroke, as well as a re-arranged cooling system where the fan was on the back end of the crankshaft (pancake), allowing a drastic reduction in the engine’s height.

For those that were expecting VW to do something actually new, like FWD, water cooling, a roomy body or a modern high-rpm OHC engine were sorely disappointed, and had to wait over a decade until the Audi-based Passat came along. A whole slew of the Beetle’s biggest shortcomings were not improved, or not enough so: the heater was still inadequate, handling on long fast sweepers invariably induced oversteer, and rear seat egress and leg room was still subpar. How hard would it have been for VW to lengthen the platform by four inches, add rear doors, and make it a legitimate sedan capable of carrying four adults in comfort?

(In Brazil, VW did make a four door version of the Type 3, but still on the same wheelbase, so rear leg room wasn’t any better either.)

The answer is obvious: the Type 3 was initially built right alongside the Type 1 (Beetle) in Wolfsburg, and it was cheaper and more expedient to make it a “Super Beetle” rather than a truly new car, or even just a slightly longer one. It largely solved the problem in Europe where Beetle fatigue set in much sooner than in the US. That also explains why VW didn’t import Type 3s to the US until 1966, even though the rest of the world was worthy of them since 1962.

That’s not to say there wasn’t a busy gray market importing Type 3s from Germany to the US. Even VW dealers were doing it, to keep their loyal customers happy looking for an upgrade, although the price was stiff: about $3,000 ($21k adjusted) in 1964, when a US Beetle was going for $1595. Quite a premium for better visibility, more trunk room and twenty-five horsepower. When the Type 3s where finally imported by VW, that premium dropped substantially: this 1969 listed at $2295, vs. $1799 for a ’69 Beetle.

I happen to have an April 1964 Car and Driver in my lap, which devotes the bulk of the issue analyzing why VW wasn’t importing the Type 3, and the ins and outs of gray imports. Production constraints was one of them, since VW was building a huge new factory in Emden, where Type 3 production was eventually moved to from Wolfsburg. And as long as the Beetle was still red hot in the US, VW didn’t feel any particular need to supplant it. Another theory was that VW at the time was anxious about the huge success of the Beetle, and the impact it had on the US industry and the trade imbalance with Germany. Since gray market imports where technically “used cars”, they didn’t add to the swelling official VW sales numbers, and so VWoA did little to impede them.

That issue of C/D also tested a 1500 S (65 hp twin carb) Notchback, and put its finger on its pros and cons. It certainly was nippier than the 40 hp Beetle, especially in the first two gears. And it could hit alofty 88 mph, eventually. But 0-60 took still eighteen seconds, glacially slow for today’s standards. They loved the superb visibility instead of sitting in a cave. And the build quality, down to every little piece of heavily chromed interior trim, was absolutely world class. But it still handled like a Beetle, jacking up on its rear swing axles on fast curves. The revised trailing arm rear suspension was still a few years away.

By 1966, the Emden plant was in full swing and Americans were finally worthy of Type 3s, even though they were already looking pretty out of date by then. But the notchback sedan was supplanted by this new fastback body style (the notchback was never officially imported, and went out of production in 1970), along with the very versatile Variant wagon (Squareback). Was VW influenced by the resurgence of fastbacks in the US during the mid-sixties? The Barracuda and Mustang fastback ignited a new fad for the swoopy tails, and soon all of Detroit got in the act. It seems kind of ironic that ultra-conservative VW would fall for such a fad.

But there were some compensations, including a rear trunk somewhat bigger than the notchback. Combined with the front trunk,

the Fastback was a bit of a Swiss Army knife, and made good use of the low and flat pancake motor, as a young Dustin Hoffman points out in this famous “where’s the engine?” ad for the Fastback:

Presumably, he got the job because his short stature makes the Fastback look larger than life; an old Detroit ad trick.

Undoubtedly, the Squareback was even more practical: it offered a front trunk in addition to a tall rear cargo area. It deserves its own CC, so we’ll honor it then. But let’s talk about one of the more remarkable features that both Type 3s came with starting in 1968: electronic fuel injection.

This was a very big deal at the time. Sure, the much more expensive Mercedes could be had with Einspritzer, but these were pricey mechanical units. The Bosch D-Jetronic was the mother of all modern electronic fuel injection systems, employing a vacuum sensor in the intake manifold to measure air mass, as well as several other sensors to determine temperature, engine speed and a few other parameters. An analog ECU made all the requisite calculations. And it worked like a charm: easy starting, no stalling, stumbling or flat spots. The same basic characteristics that were going to make fuel injection the next big thing in Detroit in the late fifties on luxury and performance cars was now standard, on a Volkswagen. And it would take over two more decades before proper port injection finally became common on American cars.

Ironically, Bosch’s Jetronic system was based heavily on the Bendix FI system patents, which was briefly optional on some American cars in the late fifties before teething problems and high prices quickly had Detroit spending the money on taller fins instead.

VW did give the Type 3 a nose job in 1970, pushing it forward and squaring it off to increase the trunk space as well as improve safety a wee bit, presumably. I’ve had one of the later ones in the can for ages (lower in photo above), but I prefer the original, and I’m glad I held out. They’re getting pretty hard to find anymore too.

This particular car, which its brand new owner proudly showed off to me, was a one-owner car that was obviously well kept, including a long period of little use. He was thrilled to find it in a newspaper ad (what’s that?). And it still runs like a sewing machine with its fuel injection intact. Sadly, or foolishly, many Type 3 owners tore out the Bosch and replaced it with a retrograde twin carb set-up, being intimidated by repairing it. In reality, these are quite rugged and fairly simple to fix, at least for someone inducted into the school of Jetronic.

The Fastback was a bit of an oddity: was it supposed to be sporty, or luxurious, or just a high-priced VW? Its appeal and sales were undoubtedly to those upgrading from a Beetle; it’s hard to imagine someone trading in a Cutlass for one. But for some, its familiar qualities, and just the quality of a Volkswagen were a habit hard to break, except with a Mercedes perhaps. And even today, its Germanic charms are seductive, but it would have to be without the automatic, thank you, even if it is spelled out in letters of such obvious high quality.

The Type 3 seems like a serious case of product planning tunnel-vision — I’m sure it looked like a great car if you didn’t compare it to anything else besides the Beetle and K-G. Admittedly, Detroit made a similar mistake in developing cars like the Gremlin, Pinto, and Vega: assuming the Beetle was a competitive design that people bought on its quantifiable merits (other than durability, which ended up being the one thing most of the erstwhile U.S. rivals didn’t manage).

How much did these cost in Germany? What were their most direct rivals? Taunus 12M/15M and Kadett? Or were they aimed a little higher?

Great piece. This is a shape that has really grown on me, particularly the earlier models with their more refined chrome detailing and lensware. Didn’t know the fastback replaced the notchback – always assumed they were produced concurrently – but now that I think about it I’ve never seen a notchback with the thicker bumpers. One previous owner, wow! Good luck to the new owner on a rare find.

Right; supplemented until 1970, then supplanted. And in some markets, like the UK, the notchback was dropped when the fastback came out. I’m wondering/thinking that might have been the case in Canada too.

Don Andreina

Posted March 13, 2015 at 7:48 PM

When I look at that notchback profile pic you used, it makes me think it’s the best looking of the T3s. Even though the fastback’s rear could be said to reference the Beetle, it doesn’t seem quite as right as the KG-ish notch. But that’s just me, and I reckon the new Rolls-Royce fastback is a shocker.

Boo

Posted November 8, 2017 at 8:56 AM

The Notchback was made right to the end of Type 3 production in 1973. Late ones have all the same features as Fastback and Variant, like 3-point seat mounts, through-flow ventilation etc.

“And it worked like a charm: easy starting, no stalling, stumbling or flat spots. ”

Starting, yes. It always started. That was nice. But no on the other qualities. Plenty of stumbling, and NOTHING BUT flat spots. Basically the engine had three settings, determined by a simple rotary switch mounted on the throttle valve. (This was dumb design, because the transistorized control box WAS purely analog, and could have handled a smooth input!) The speed and power curve took a couple seconds to settle into each of those three settings.

This wasn’t quite so obtrusive with automatic tranny; the torque converter smoothed out the pauses and steps.

I never got into the whole VW love-fest. While they were fun to drive, the lack of creature comforts found on the cheapest American cars made them total odd-balls to me. One thing I did like: Good gas mileage! U.S. cars couldn’t come close to that!

The lack of creature comforts is what I liked about these cars. To me a car is a driving machine. The rusted out early ’70s Porsche 911 I got to drive around the track for a while a couple decades ago was such a car. And I loved it. I wish I could own one just like it right now. That very car probably got restored and is worth $200,000 by now. VWs have no A/C, no heater (not one that works anyway) no power steering, brakes, windows, the bugs I had manual transmissions. These are real cars for real car enthusiasts. Those looking for amenities need not apply. As a former private pilot (I lost my medical certificate) it’s like the difference in flying a modern aircraft and a WWI era bi-plane. both are fun, but an antique aircraft gives you a visceral experience no modern aircraft ever could.

Some will never understand this. Most will never understand this. They are the ones who drive new car sales. I’m the type that helps keep people in the business of making parts for old cars in business.

I have been ask the same thing about my 2 vintage Vespa scooters. They are manual shift manual clutch 2 strokes, kick start only, and you have to mix the oil and gas. They can be a bit temperamental at times, and they are not the most comfortable scooters around. People ask me why I don’t get one of these new twist and go electric start 4 stroke scooters with automatic transmissions, disc brakes and more comfortable seats. It’s simple really. I don’t want one. I enjoy riding the old vintage ones. Same reason I bought a Royal Enfield motorcycle. I love old technology, and doing things for myself.

It’s one of those things that “if you understand, no explanation is necessary, if you don’t, no explanation is possible”

That’s what I don’t like about today’s cars, the “creature comforts” that are included in cars. That’s not to say that I don’t like to be comfortable when I drive, but I find most of the things that are supposed to make a car comfortable actually make it uncomfortable.

Hey, a Type III Fastback with an automatic? That’s a good find! Other than the owner-added touches like the shag carpeting on the package shelf, it’s also practically identical to the fastback that a co-worker of mine had back in the early 80s. The combination of a completely stock engine, the automatic tranny, and his timid driving style made it the Slowest Car on the Road. The guy was about six-foot-six and not exactly a weakling, but he was very mild-mannered, and rather childlike. Really a very gentle soul. He always made me think of the big, clumsy guy in Of Mice and Men, and seeing him pull up in that car with his knees wrapped around the steering wheel was like something out of a Disney cartoon. (Is that a mixed metaphor?) You’re really bringing back the memories with this one.

I imagine the folks who bought these when they were new thought they were being quite rational and intelligent. In 1966, IF there were Japanese car dealers in your area, you had a Toyota Corona and Corolla to choose from or a Datsun 411. Volvos 122 was a bit upscale, and the Opel Kadett looked and perhaps felt (?) a little less substantial than the type 3. So I can understand why they sold well in spite of their shortcomings.
I was just about to get a driver’s license when these hit the U.S. and had yet to discover Car&Driver or Road and Track….and my small town was smack dab in the middle of a foreign-car “dessert” with the nearest NON domestic dealers being 2 hours away. The local Buick and Oldsmobile dealer sold a VERY occasional Opel or Vauxhall but these where more likely seen in junkyards than on the local roads.
I admired these cars because they were/are so completely different from 90% of what was/is on America’s roads….but never enough to own one.

There was no Corolla in 1966 (first came in 1968), and there were very few Toyota dealers that year, mostly in CA. Toyota’s big expansion came in 1967-1969. In 1966, Toyota was not yet a nationally-competitive brand.

U.S. Toyota sales, per the Standard Catalog of Imported Cars. I’m not sure if these numbers are model year or calendar year, or if they are cars only or cars and trucks combined (my guess is that they are calendar year, cars only), but the trend is obvious:

I’m surprised to see how deeply Toyota was apparently affected by the recession in 1974-75. I had always assumed that the energy crisis drove up sales of Japanese cars, and that this was a significant inflection point in U.S. automakers losing market share to the Japanese. To the contrary, it looks like Toyota had a couple of down years in 1974-75 (I’m especially surprised about 1974, as small American cars did very well that year), then the economically better 1976-79 period is really when they made some serious gains. U.S. sales figures for other Japanese makes display a similar pattern.

It’s hard to say what to make of the post-1980 figures. ’80 sales were presumably up due to the second energy crisis. Subsequent years could have been impacted by the ongoing recession, or voluntary import quotas, or (assuming that these figures are car-only) the loss of sales from the car side of the ledger to the truck side. Even taken at face value, Toyota was still holding up a lot better than most domestic brands, which saw their sales fall well below late ’70s levels during this period.

I’ve read that the 1958 car (called the Toyopet) was such a flop, that Toyota withdrew from the U.S. market for a few years. That may account for the lack of sales figures prior to 1963.

If I recall correctly, it was in 1975 that Toyota knocked VW out of first place among sales of imported cars. That was when VW was in the midst of transitioning to the all-new, front-wheel-drive Dasher, Rabbit and Scirocco, but I believe that VW’s American sales had been falling since 1970.

Most of Toyota’s early passenger cars (and some of their light trucks) were branded as Toyopets, and some continued to be in the home market until the late ’70s. The main exceptions were the Publica, which was originally its own brand, and, from 1966, the Corolla.

Everything, everybody, was feeling that ’74-’75 recession. Chrysler sales dropped 40% from ’73 to ’74 to give you another data point. It ended the 30 year post WWII boom. But not to be outdone, the ’79-’83 recession was even worse! That’s when they came up with the misery index; % of unemployed + % of inflation. Summer of ’80 it got to 23%.

The Malaise Decade; I spent it trying to get established in some kind of career. Got out of college in spring ’74 in Ann Arbor…nobody hiring anybody then….it seemed to go on forever….

The Corolla did launch in 1966, but it wasn’t offered in the U.S. until 1968. As you say, it wouldn’t have yet been a meaningful competitor for Volkswagen in any case due to the smaller dealer network and limited brand recognition in the U.S.

The D-Jet F.I. was adopted because they couldn’t make the Typ III pass the California SMOG requirements . Ca. was the biggest part of the U.S.A. market .

They made Notch , Fast and Square backs all at the same time .

Typ II’s were pretty good ~ my Mother bought a new ’67 Squareback from Brookline Motors , a typical clip joint VW $tealer in the 1960’s when a VW franchise was pretty close to operating a printing press for money , they didn’t give a rat’s patoot about the Customer , few VW Dealers did back then .

I’ve had quite a few Typ III’s and enjoyed them all ~ D Jetronic FI is very good indeed because it’s so simple .

Until some boob fools with it , it’s dang near perfect ~ all those flat spots were caused by lack of or incorrect maintenance .

For the time , these were very fast for four cylinder cars and when equipped with good shocks (Koni’s etc.) and decent radial tires , out handled most other cars on the road .

They had *much* more room inside than did Beetles ~ as a wild youth I always preferred my Beetles but I rocked a ’71 Fastback with the BW M-35 slushbox I bought from an abandoned vehicle auction until I foolishly sold it to a Customer who blind sided me with wads of hundred dollar bills and the title and keys to their ’71 Super Beetle with new paint & upholstery I was working on one Sunday afternoon .

Oops .

I could fly that thing down Mulholland Drive with no drama whatsoever .

I was going to add more but this is prolly too long & pedantic already .

That’s not why VW adopted the FI for the Type 3s. Everybody and anybody had no problem passing the 1968 CA smog requirements with a bit of jiggling with ignition and carb settings. The ’68 levels were very modest. The Beetle made do with carbs until 1974, by which time the emission limits were much lower.

VW used the FI to help justify the Type 3’s higher price, and improve performance and driveability. Which it did. The same reason many Mercedes models had fuel injection: it conveyed a message about German technological prowess, which helped sell the cars.

Yes, they made all three body styles at the same time, but the notchback was never officially imported to the US.

I was worried I’d wax overly poetic/nostalgic over the early 1500N’s (single side draft carby , flat tailight lenses) and European 1500S (twin carbys’ with revised cylinder heads & pop up HC pistons, blah blah blah) ~ I see folks get that glassy stare when I ramble on too long about the technical aspects of the old vehicles I worked on way back when .

BTW : the Typ III’s fully automatic slushbox was the world famous Borg – Warner M-35 three speed auto they’d developed for the ’49 Ford….. it was used in millions upon millions of cars , possibly more imports than Domestics as _everyone_ used it under license , my ’59 Metropolitan Nash FHC has the J-35 version from a 1980 Datsun B-210 because they never sold the Triumph Herald with the A=35 version of this very same tranny in the U.S. and all the Herald’s I found in Canada were beyond salvaging the tranny out of…… .

Gee, Nate, I hate to have to keep correcting you, but the VW 003 automatic transmission was fully self-developed by VW and was not based on the BW Type 35. It was considerably more efficient than the BW 35, and was used by VW on the 411/412, the Type 2 bus, and also on the FWD VWs and Audis (Passat/Dasher/Audi Fox/80). it was the basis of all of VW’s future automatics.

-Nate

Posted March 17, 2015 at 5:12 AM

That’s O.K. Paul ;

I like to learn new things .

I never learned more than basic Slushbox servicing and adjusting so I’ve never seen the innards of one else I’d know for sure .

Again , I only know what they told us during the training .

I’ll stop repeating that now , sooner or later I’ll get something right .

There’s much debate here about the extent to which the decision to make fuel injection standard was driven by impending emissions regulations. It’s true that they could have passed 1968 standards in all states with little trouble using carburetors. But they were still under enormous pressure; 1974 was not far away and the compromises needed to pass increasingly strict regulations (which were up for debate each year in Washington) might have been possible, but they weren’t pretty. The US-spec Beetle had lost much of the horsepower gained in the ’50s and ’60s by 1974; I can hardly imagine what the CA-spec versions were like. Some of the tricks used to pass (timing retardation, EGR, lean mixtures) the tests were also having terrible effects on driveability and fuel economy (which could have jumped up in importance with each Middle East crisis, as it did in 1973). The requirement that all cars be able to run on unleaded gasoline also forced reduced compression ratios for 1971, though, to be honest, I’m not sure if most VW engines had high enough ratios to be affected much by that. The point is that the future of air-cooled engines was threatened and FI was one factor that could delay the collision course between these relics and the regulatory climate of the 1970s. Getting a reliable system on the market on a modestly-priced car like the Type-3 sooner rather than later, even if they lost money on it, made strategic sense. So, while I can’t claim to have been a fly on the wall when the decision was made to make FI standard for all US-spec type-3s, I’d be shocked if the future of clean air regulations wasn’t a major factor. It should be duly noted that Honda, with among the most advanced mechanical engine designs in the industry, was also dead last when it came to adopting FI, finally producing the last carbureted US-spec Accord around 1989. I believe the early US-spec Rabbits, with their water cooled OHC engines, went back to carberators for a few years.

Let me speculate just a bit further: I’m wondering if VW’s biggest reason for holding off the Type-3 introduction in the US was worries about how the original swing-axle rear suspension would be treated here. They must have been watching the barrage of lawsuits GM was facing over the Corvair and thinking “there but for the grace of God”. I assume that in the 1960s, VW could argue that most of its buyers should have known that the Beetle was a Hitler-era relic that shouldn’t have been expected to fit modern automotive norms; they would have had no such excuse for a “new” model, so limiting the Type 3 to less litigious markets until an up-to-date suspension was in place only made sense.

I don’t see how the swing axle angle (get it?) came into play in 1966. Type 3’s were still swing axle until 1969 (68 if automatic). Same with Beetle, ’68 auto stick IRS, ’69 if stick. All Type 2 (Bus) were IRS in ’68.

Reading this make me think back to 1966 when dad was out of the Chevrolet dealership and Volkswagen of America offered him a new franchise they wanted to open in Indiana, PA (about 20 miles northwest of Johnstown). It would have come on-line concurrent with the introduction of the Type 3, although in our area the Beetle way outsold this model.

Unfortunately, after thinking it over dad decided he just couldn’t bring himself to sell a German automobile. He had a bit of an attitude against the Germans, dating back twenty two years to some shrapnel in his right leg and a little place called Monte Casino.

What I often wonder is how replacing Chevrolet’s with Volkswagen’s would have affected the family garage. By this time, we were permanently a two-car family, and mom’s was always a full-sized Chevrolet station wagon. At least the Type 3 offered an automatic (mom could drive a manual, the earliest car I knew she owned was a ’46 Chevrolet, but I never saw her touch one). But, where do you go when you’re used to hauling the kids around in a station wagons? Do you convert over to a Type 2 bus, and put up with all sorts of wierdnesses compared to what you’ve driven all your life; or go with a Type 3 squareback, get something that feels a bit normal, but lose a lot of hauling space.

Somehow, I have a feeling mom would have continued to own a series of year old Chevrolet station wagons.

That’s how it worked for many back then ~ my Pops was 1,000 % clueless about cars but he had 6 squalling brats and so in 1954 on one of his European trips he brought back an early VW Kombi ~ this being the cheapest model of VW Van ~ seats but no inside panels etc.

My family dynamic was an interesting one for the 50’s/60’s: Both partners were Byzantine Catholic Slovaks (their respective families came from 50 miles apart in eastern Czechoslovakia), die-hard conservative Republicans (dad actually cheered Kennedy’s assassination), and mom was the typical loyal, loving wife who was never seen in slacks until the day she died. Dad ran the house with an iron fist, us two kids were in absolute terror of him when we screwed up (but by no point could be be called abusive, we were just disciplined).

Except that under the 50’s suburban image, mom actually ran dad, but very quietly, subtly, and would never admit to doing anything like that. Or think she was.

I have a feeling that mom wasn’t thrilled about dad taking on another car dealership, especially one where she’d be driving something that she openly disdained. And they were small. Tiny, even. Mom, even more than dad, couldn’t understand how someone could call themselves an American and drive a foreign car.

Holy moly. In 1964 $3,000 would by you a brand new Oldsmobile F-85 Cutlass Holiday Coupe and left room for options. You could get the convertible for under $3,000. A Chevy Chevelle Malibu coupe V-8 started at $2484, leaving lots of room for options.

You really had to like VWs to pursue a gray market 1600. Quite a premium indeed.

Still, kind of a cool car. This was the only import that I had any experience with as a young child. My part of the world was very GM full-size centric, but at least three of these were in that orbit. The one I was closest to was a good friend whose folks had an eclectic garage; a 1600, a ’73 Ford Torino wagon, and an inherited 1964 Cadillac Sedan DeVille. His parents were probably as close to ex hippy as I ever knew, sort of the prototypes of the parents of Michael J. Fox’s character on the TV show “Family Ties”. They really were 1600 people at heart, the Torino was suburban reality thanks to three kids, and they disposed of the Caddy rather quickly – too bad – it was as loaded as they came, including the power vent windows and in mint condition.

Back in 1970-’72 I had a great job working weekends and in the summer for a car importer at the Dundalk Marine Terminal in Baltimore. The company had the VW contract (along with British Leyland) and would take the cars offloaded from the ships and have them undercoated, prepped and have the occasional A/C installed. Guys like me drove hundreds of these cars around the terminal having these things done, before loading them onto tri-level rail cars for shipment to dealer depots all over the east. At least 90% of the cars were Beetles, but we handled the other VW products as well. (There would be a scramble over who got the occasional 911).

I recall the featured car, along with the mechanically identical Squareback. Although the Squareback made some sense as a compact wagon, I have no idea what was the intended market for the Fastback. Saddled with most of the Beetle’s liabilities it was neither fast, sporty nor sleek. No competition whatsoever for American pony cars and intermediates of that era. And, these weren’t cheap, costing far more than the Beetle and well into Camaro and Cutlass territory.

A plus, I suppose, over the Beetle was the availability of a fully automatic transmission (the Beetle’s “Automatic Stickshift” was awful). And, as with the Beetle, fit and finish were impeccable. We were occasionally loaned to the Mercedes importer when they needed help and the VW’s were easily their match in the fit and finish category. The worst? Everything from British Leyland, including Jaguar. Many didn’t even start and needed to be towed around the terminal.

This brings back memories. My grandmother’s cousin lived in Lorain, Ohio. In the summer she and her husband would visit my grandmother in Pennsylvania, driving their 1960s Dodge motorhome with a VW fastback just like the featured car – down to the color – in tow.

In the summer of 1969, we visited them in Lorain, and I went with their daughter and her two sons on some errands. She drove the VW 1600 Fastback. Along the way, she stopped at a McDonalds and bought us all something to eat for lunch. Not only was it my first ride in a Volkswagen, it was also the first time I had ever eaten at a McDonalds. (McDonalds hadn’t yet set up any franchises in our area – that wouldn’t happen until about 1971.)

What I remember about the VW was how noisy the engine seemed compared to our 1965 Chevrolet Bel Air station wagon, which had a V-8. It also seemed so small inside compared to our Chevrolet. At that time, foreign cars, in general, were still somewhat rare in our neighborhood. Every time I see one of these cars, I think of that trip. Thank you for the pleasant trip down Memory Lane!

Volkswagen quality in this era was impeccable. I was privileged to receive a brand new ’68 Beetle, which I happily drove for nine years and maintained myself. Today, I have no wish to relive my Beetle years, but a Type 3 Fastback, with automatic to keep my gimpy shoulder from flaring up, would be a lot of fun. This cars owner is going to love it.

I am not sure if it was a fully automatic transmission, it most likely was the semiautomatic with an electrically operated clutch that opened when you touched the shift knob. That would be easy on your left knee but still hard on your right shoulder.

IIRC in Germany it was the VW 411 that introduced the electronic fuel injection. That’s why I think Nate has it right: VW had to deal with California’s emissions standards.

In Germany people hated to do adjustments to the carburetor. You couldn’t get to some screws without special tools.

I have a copy of a German classic car magazine that compared the Type 3 with the Opel Rekord and the Ford 15M (Badewanne). The Type 3 was actually the fastest in top speed and the testers found it more quiet than the water cooled competitors because of the engine’s location. None the less I assume it was not faster than sound!

No; starting in 1967, the 1600 was available with the D-Jetronic in Germany and the rest of Europe, at extra cost.

The reason it was standard was not that the VW engine couldn’t meet the smog requirements; the Beetle and Type II had no problem meeting them with carbs through 1974, by which time the regulations were much more onerous. VW fitted the US-bound Type III with FI because it ran better, had better driveability, performance and mileage. It was a way to differentiate it from the Beetle, and help justify its substantially higher price. It was a big deal: the first car with electronic fuel injection – a good selling point that played up Germany’s technological prowess, even if the Type 3 sat on a rather antiquated chassis.

L-Jetronic is actually quite a bit different than D-Jetronic. Aside from being digitally rather than analog controlled, the fuel metering is very different. D-Jetronic is based on manifold air pressure (D stands for “Druck,” as I recall) while L-Jetronic (L for “Luft”) uses a mass airflow sensor. I don’t know that the systems had a whole lot in common beyond the trade names.

ohwonesten

Posted March 13, 2015 at 5:50 PM

I thought sometime way long ago (35-40 years) that I read “L” was derived from “D”, but they say you learn something everyday, and so it is here.

I’ve driven the Beetle, and while I liked its quirky handling and ride, I felt it was too small to fit my body. It was particularly cramped in the back seat, with its sloping rear window. I believe I would’ve preferred either the notchback sedan, with a proper rear trunk (albeit over the rear engine), or the Squareback station wagon. 🙂

We had a lot of VWs in the family when I was a kid in the 60s, including a Fastback (my aunt) and two Squarebacks (my father, who bought the second one after broadsiding a ’59 Caddy in the first one). One day while riding my bike a mile from home I came across a notchback. Was ist das? I thought I had entered a portal into an alternate universe…the feeling was similar to how many CC readers report feeling when they see an almost familiar Aussie or South American car on this site.

Did the Fastback have a “wayback” like the Beetle? I can’t remember. But I do remember how noisy it was riding in the very back of the Squareback. [EDIT: Actually, I can see in the photos that the feature car did not…is this the case for all of them?]

None of the Fastbacks ever had the wayback or suitcase well behind the back seat, the rear trunk went all the way to the backrest of the back seat. It was useful having another trunk up front, although neither one was all that roomy.

I remember waiting for the school bus each day and seeing a car that looked like my father’s Squareback, but with a proper trunk. I was well aware, after going through the 1969 brochures, that this wonder with a “computer” in one of its rear tail fins was only available in two shapes, at least for that year, so I just assumed it was part of their earlier lineup, though I never built up the courage (or maybe motivation) to walk over and confirm that it wasn’t just some unknown import that looked a lot like a VW. It wasn’t until the 1980s when one of my co-workers from Puerto Rico mentioned that the gray market notchbacks were coveted there, that I was really sure this thing was more than just the product of a 9-year-old’s overactive imagination. Ironically, even in 1969, I was aware of my uncle’s gray-market (really shipped-back, German-purchased) Type-3 Karman Giha, so a similarly purchased notchback wouldn’t really have been a surprise.

A lot of us had first exposure to EFI with these. Quite simple compared to what’s around today; but there wasn’t a whole lot of information on these at the time. At least to the aftermarket; VW did a pretty good job of training the dealer wrenches.

The guys that spent a lot of time with EFI made their own breakout boxes. The sensors changed their resistance to signal the computer what to do. So they had a box of potentiometers they inserted between the engine harness and the computer, during a test drive they would twirl the knobs to find out what the engine liked. Then they measured how many ohms the pot was, and soldered a resistor of that value into the harness. I still have my 10mm special wrench you needed to get to the clamp bolt on the distributor…

I had 2 66 Fastbacks and a 64 greymarket 1500s Squareback. Also had 2 68 Fastbacks, one was wrecked, the other needed it’s engine and interior, they both had FI and after I swapped all the parts and made one good one it started right up and ran fine. Sold it right away as I needed the money. The others were all twin carb and as long as you used the uni-syn tool and kept the carbs balanced the 1600 cc engines in the fastbacks ran quite strong, you could hit 90 eventually. Is this article a reprint? I thought I read this one years ago. The Squareback was a worn out rustbucket but served me well the 3 years I had it, leaked oil badly and trans popped out of 2nd and 4th gear, used a bungie cord between the shifter and handbrake to keep it in 4th on the freeway. The 2 Fastbacks both were bought needing engine rebuilds, so they both had fresh stock 2 carb single port 1600 cc engines and ran quite strong. The Fastbacks had a lot less engine noise inside with the engine being sealed off in the trunk helping to block off the sounds. The first 66 I sold after a few months to buy my 70 C10 pickup, the second one I had for years, then my parents had bought it from me, finally they sold it back to my neighbor. The engine did need a head replaced after 100k miles (cracked) because the air intake bellows fell apart causing the engine to overheat. They were so much nicer and roomier then a Beetle. Had a good fresh air ventilation and pop open rear windows for good air flow, a real dashboard and curved windshield that wasn’t next to your nose, and was wider inside with bigger seats, rear seat had a fold down center armrest. You also got front disc brakes and a smoother ride. The steel was thick on these cars, they had strong bodies. They were sensitive to cross winds, I think the Beetle was better in that regard. The 6 volt system of the 66’s (last year) made for hard starting when cold. If I could find a decent 67 (12 volt dual port twin carb) Fastback for a good price I would be tempted to buy it.

When I was growing up, a neighbor of ours had a 1972 Squareback (he was a college professor, naturally), and it definitely stood out in the sea of domestic iron that was prevalent in our neighborhood at the time. I had a “car wash business” when I was a kid, and Dr. T. was a customer. It was my first in-depth exposure to German cars, and I vividly remember the quality of the materials, inside and out, as being so solid. I rode in it, and I remember thinking it was rather loud and sluggish, but he seemed to enjoy it. There was just something about the quirkiness and sense of indestructability that car exuded, which must have been part of the VW mystique. He had two little kids, his wife drove a ’77 Custom Cruiser (that one fit right into my neighborhood), so I guess it was his way of having his quasi-practical piece of German engineering. He could have easily afforded to trade it in and get something newer/bigger/better, but he religiously held on to that car, even repairing it after a fairly major fender bender. He later moved on to Audis, and he got a 1983 Audi Coupe, which was a very nice car.

I purchased a new VW 1600 fastback in Germany in the summer of 1968; I was in the USAF at the time. Cost about $1,800 and shipped it back to Houston, Tx for about $300! It was very well built and the einspritz worked well. Of course it was slow, but I enjoyed it. Unfortunately, the handling was same as a beetle and it slid out from under me in Colorado Springs during freezing rain in spring of 1969. I was lucky, but the car was totaled! Wish I could have owned it longer.

I love this car. Unfortunately I never got to own one, and I’m sure they are all rusted away by now. But I have owned (and loved) 3 VW bugs. All 3 had some rust. One, a ’72, had some pretty bad rust in the heater channels. It was the only one I kept mostly stock. I didn’t find the rust until I went to install new running boards. I finally sold it because it was almost impossible to get through emissions. Here in AZ, any air cooled VW has to be run pretty rich to keep it from melting down.

As for this Type III, just like the Beetle, you have to accept it for what it is or look for something else. All air cooled VWs are oddball cars when compared to more conventional cars. They are either your thing or their not.

Its a love-hate relationship for me. There are things I really like about those air cooled rear engine German cars. But there are some problems I do not care to deal with in a daily driver. If I had a large car collection, a Porsche 914/6 and a VW type 34 would be in it.

Well, in fairness, even Lucas was dubious about some of the things Triumph had done with the production Mk2 system, and some of the 2.5PI engine’s headaches weren’t specifically injection-related (the fuel tank starvation issues, for one). Also, Lucas later licensed D-Jetronic, which was used on the Jag XJ-S and later XJ-12, among others.

Mine too. I also like the Squareback. I’ve always liked rear-engined rear-wheel drive Volkswagens. If I could do one thing to upgrade an old-school VW, I’d have a water-cooled boxer engine installed, possibly a Subaru engine.

Really enjoyable article. As a teen with a 60 Beetle as my first car, I loved all things VW and avidly followed developments on the impending importation of the 1600 in all of the “foreign car” magazines (I still have most of them☺). In our small town in the Midwest we had a neighbor and friend who bought a new dark red 1967 1600 Fastback. I was really excited and got to drive it a couple of times, including on a long trip up to Chicago to pick her up at the train station. The fit and finish was superior and the car felt really luxurious and fast – compared to my 63 Beetle. I never got to drive one with the fuel injection – enjoyed the comments regarding its performance. I’ve always loved the styling (but like many, not the next iteration with the revised snout). All these decades later, I still think they are very attractive cars. They never appeared to sell that well at the time and I’m guessing that the big improvements to the 68-69 Beetle and the price differential undercut sales.

Rode in one the back seat of one of these as a 14 year old in 1974. Shared it with Sue Gray ( and looking forward to our class reunion too!)
The engine noise from behind kept me thinking that some one was tailgating us.

My dad’s 72 Squareback is the one I remember the most, because I learned to drive in it, with it’s notchy but precise 4 speed stick shift. The car along with the bug is taller than other subcompacts, so the seating is more chair like, even in the rear. I remember being comfortable riding in back , as a teenager. It was a lot better than riding in the back of a low low Pinto, with your knees way up. I wonder why the type 3 VWs never got the front Macpherson suspension like the Super Beetle or 411 ? It would have come in handy for a larger front trunk , especially in the Notchback , which had very shallow front and rear trunks.

Back in the 70’s someone pushed a Type 3 fastback off an 800 foot cliff in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney. It became a minor tourist attraction because it was an unrecognisable ball of metal with the exception of the RH taillight which survived perfectly intact